These are encouraging numbers. And here’s another bit of good news. A recent poll by Fox News found that a plurality of Americans would not give up personal freedoms to reduce the threat of terrorism. What’s especially remarkable is that this poll took place immediately following the bombing of the Boston Marathon by the welfare-sponging Tsarnaev brothers.

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a left-leaning friend who said this poll showed that Americans were a bunch of “paranoid nuts” because this poll showed that they viewed their government with suspicion.

But perhaps people are simply rational. I had an intern look up data on the probability of getting killed by a terrorist. He found an article from Reason that reported.

…a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000.

In other words, the odds of being killed by a terrorist are very low. And with the risk so low, why give up liberty? Particularly when it’s highly unlikely that sacrificing more of your freedom will actually reduce the already-low threat of terrorism.

This reminds me of the money laundering issue. Just a few decades ago, there was no such thing as anti-money laundering laws. Then politicians decided we need these laws to reduce crime.

These laws, we were told, would give law enforcement more tools to catch bad guys and also reduce the incentive to commit crimes since it would be harder for criminals to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

So how did politicians respond? In a stereotypical display of Mitchell’s Law, they decided to make anti-money laundering laws more onerous, imposing ever-higher costs in hopes of having some sort of positive impact.

11 Responses

Someone should do an analysis of what are the odds of getting killed by the government (or better yet: killed by the government while being innocent of any serious crime). It is highly likely that this would be higher than the odds of getting killed by a terrorist. That would REALLY go far in explaining why it is rational to be more worried about government power than terrorism.

I have a really good book to recommend, Dan. Here’s the link to the book on Amazon.http://www.amazon.com/Death-Distance-Birth-Humane-Universe/dp/1439254125/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1367796248&sr=8-2&keywords=Death+from+a+distance
One of the points these two biologists make is that when the ability to coerce social cooperation is limited to the elites, as it was during the middle ages universally and as it still is in many states, the elites run things for their own benefit and not for the benefit of all in common.
This is a lesson many of us understand without the benefit of detailed knowledge of the correspondence between evolution and social history–the elites run things to benefit the elites, and the only way to prevent the elites from doing so with impunity is to limit their power in every way possible.

My version of Mitchell’s law is a bit more verbose, but amounts to the same thing:

“The more voter-lemmings decline, the more desperate they become, the more they redouble on the redistribution and central planning policies that are causing their decline in the first place.”

Americans have the most libertarian views *still* i.e. for the time being. But the pendulum is irreversibly swinging in the opposite direction.

After a short period of time away from the rest of the world — most Americans have been in the New World for a short time in historical terms –Americans are ideologically reverting to average worldwide mentality and political thinking: mandatory collectivism — a predictable development. Thus, their prosperity convergence is also unavoidable. The top misconception amongst Americans, who see a pivot towards a collectivist future as a means to survival, is that somehow America can become Europe and not decline as Europe is currently doing.

The indolence inducing welfare state and its rather flat effort-reward curve could survive in a past era. The era when the only competitors were followers of Mao Zedong, Leonid Brezhnev, Mahatma Gandhi etc. who once convinced billions into a near-inert environment of almost zero incentives. But not now. Three billion citizens outside the western world are already awakening and the remainder are likely soon to follow. Who would have thought three decades ago that China would one day even come close to challenging the US as an attractive and efficient place to do business?

As three billion people awaken to capitalism, the less than one billion voter-lemmings comprising the western world are rejecting it. The pace of convergence is spectacular. Those who will feel the greatest change in decline are those who once were most free and most prosperous: Americans. Europeans are more or less resigned to their decline already. They are inescapably and desperately clinging to their welfare state like an octopus clings to the fisherman’s bait line.

Anyone who is really concerned about current levels of terrorist casualties should spend a night perusing the rooms of a typical hospital. Remember that what you will see going on in there, takes place all night, every night, undocumented and un-discussed by the media showing the latest terrorist alert level.

Then understand the rough equivalency (I admit not an equivalency in moral terms) of a life lost and a life not saved.

Then, consider an agency like say the FDA slowing down medical progresses by a mere 10%, and consider the total impact compounding over forty years. You then get a better perspective about where the real dangers are.

Apply same logic to other forms of mandatory collectivism that reduce economic growth (ie progress) from say 5% to 3% (though I believe that under HopNChange we are already on a permanent 2.5% trendline average and the vicious cycle America entered will soon impose European level growth trendlines ie 1-2% if we assume the better performing amongst European economies).

trust in government to act in the best interest of the people is eroding… and once trust is gone… consent will be lost as well… the shameless exploitation of tragedy by politicians… bureaucrats… and the establishment media is wearing thin… people know that the system is broken… but there is no current leadership capable of reviving the American vision… and delivering a prosperous… just… and free American reality… hard times are ahead… and there is an uneasy sense of that all across the land… it is a time for self reliance… prudent planning…and profound reflection… god help us…

Another analysis full of insight would be the odds of being sanctioned in some way (convicted or fined or lost your property or lost the use of your property) – because of some government law or regulation. Why should some government bureaucrat have the power to decide you should lose out even though you’ve harmed nobody – a victimless crime.

This would help explain why it is entirely rational to want governments to have less rather than more power.

There is wide-spread support for smaller government, however, when you attempt to reduce individual programs, that support disappears. An incremental approach to smaller government will not work. Neither will an immediate cessation of entitlement and support programs. Even a radical closing of support programs must somehow wean our dependent population slowly.

Let’s suppose just for a minute that at some time in our history, we arrived at a point where we had EXACTLY the number of laws we needed to balance our society. And then let us suppose that we still employed over 500 people whose jobs it was to make laws which regulate and control our society. Do you not then suppose that those tasked with this job would get a little carried away in the days that followed?

I would contend that we arrived at that point in 1791 when Virginia became the 11th state to ratify the Bill of Rights- though some would argue it was not necessary, and part of the problem that made these regulators think they had powers they do not.

Our government is best exemplified in the things it does NOT do, rather then the things that it does.

The question is, has the US become a society of hysterical media junkies that has lost perspective and is willing to to give up fundamental civil liberties, justice and due process in exchange for irrational arguments of expediency?

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were an outstanding estimate of the fundamental requirements to form a just and civil society. How far has the US drifted from it’s founding principles?

The US must take a hard look in the mirror and decide whether the erosion of fundamental rights and civil liberties is justifiable or proportionate to the public risks that have inspired them.

The Boston bombings typify the difficulties that can arise. The disregard for fourth amendment rights in favor of a public safety exception, proved to have been irrational and contrary to it’s own purpose. It is clear that such action must be proportionate to the risk and take into consideration a number of issues:

The first consideration must be the question of whether the public safety risk will be outweighed by the safety risk of the proposed action. The spectacle of heavily armed public enforcement officers forcefully entering houses at a high level of excitedness presented a real danger that could have resulted in multiple accidental public fatalities. Was the risk properly weighed against the dangers to the public? Apart from the real dangers of the enforcement actions on a large population, if the suspect had been in one of the houses it would have likely resulted in further casualties in the ensuing gun battle. The risk could have been better contained by less invasive and aggressive actions allowing rapid deployment in the event of probable cause. ie strategically placed rapid deployment units suitably located to respond. Arbitrary search did not seem to be an effective use of the resources and put officers and the public in more danger than they were already in.

The second consideration is whether the perceived public safety exception was real or imagined. The suspect was thought to have been injured and escaped on foot. It is unlikely that he would have been able to carry more than a small explosive or weapon. Given the information available the actions seem to have been based on a gross overestimate of the capabilities of the suspect. This is perhaps due to term “terrorist” being used and the human reaction precipitated by the cold blooded murder of the MIT Police Officer. In these kinds of situations a cold and calculated decisions are required. The tactics must take into account all the facts in a rational way. This could be summed up as professionalism. The suspect had a limited number of options. The worst case would be a last stand taking as many people with him as possible. It is difficult to see that the tactics employed would do anything to prevent this possibility but rather precipitate it. Storming houses on an arbitrary basis would undoubtedly cause this to happen should he be inside and be so inclined. Securing the area and wait and see is the logical choice. The officers and the public were put at terrible risk for no apparent advantage.

The third consideration is the level of risk that is required to justify the disregard for the fourth amendment protections. The balance must be arrived at in factual and calculated way; a basis that can be later justified in the judicial system. Such a decision must take into account the threshold required for such an exception. It would obviously be a great advantage if law enforcement officers or other agencies could simply search, seize or arrest in any place, or for any person, without probable cause. I dare say that if every person or premises were searched tomorrow, many or all crimes would be solved instantaneously. Such ideas are frequently suggested… most recently in the case of the three abductees. If the police could have searched every house they would have found Amanda Berry and prevented further abductions. The question is why should there be laws to limit the power of public officers? The freedom and privacy of individuals, the protections that safeguard a free society, have a price. This is the price that must be paid to arrest the drift into totalitarianism and arbitrary administrative decisions. The clue is in the word exception itself. The circumstances must be exceptional. This is a very high threshold and one that should not be evaluated arbitrarily. The overall risk from criminality is high in the US. The risk to the public must necessarily exceed this general risk, and cross threshold to become an exceptional one. This is not a place for emotive evaluation but a quantitative one. It is difficult to imagine that the Boston bombers created an exceptionally higher risk to the public than are faced by the public generally. Negligent businesses, gang members, bank robbers, gun owners clearly present a far higher risk on a quantitative basis. The Boston bombers did not present an exceptional risk by any measure.

However, that is not to say that there are not situations that do exceed that threshold. The attack on the Twin Towers was clearly exceptional. However, even under those extreme circumstances the branches of government must remain in full control, Under no circumstances can we allow principle to be exchanged for expedience, no matter how great the provocation, no matter how great the sacrifice. The price of freedom must never be underestimated.